“But I found his interview from October 2006 on Meet the Press to be very disappointing. I still voted for him, hoping that in the weeks and months to come, he’d clarify his position, and reiterate that Roe must go.
But he didn’t.
Now it’s over two years.”
There’s something a bit amiss about the stance you take. Do you really expect ex-candidates to clarify their campaign afterwards? C’mon - that’s just a wee bit silly.
Anyway I’m sure Steele has made a pro-life statement since, I believe maybe in connection with his run for this chairmanship but I don’t know where.
Well, then I'm silly.
But if the man wants me to believe that he's pro-life, he has to at least affirm that Roe must go.
If his last statement on Roe is that he accepts it, then he isn't pro-life.
“Anyway I’m sure Steele has made a pro-life statement since, I believe maybe in connection with his run for this chairmanship but I don’t know where.”
Oh heck, he says he's pro-life all the time!
But so does Bob Casey, Jr. Who votes with NARAL 65% of the time.
The thing is, I judge these turkeys based on what they say and do, not on what letter they stick to their backs.
A pro-lifer is a pro-lifer. A pro-lifer, at the very least, affirms that Roe was wrongly decided and must go. And then, a real pro-lifer says that the lives of unborn children must be protected in law.
Folks who accept Roe are not pro-lifers. Whether they're Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or what-have-you.
He must address the question of Roe, and affirm that it must be in some way entirely nullified, so that the right to life of unborn children will once again be respected in law.
Otherwise, he can say he's pro-life all day long. He's nothing but a fraud.
But a very likable, personable fraud who can give a great speech.
sitetest
Questions for you both: Does Meet the press edit its production? Is it possible that his answer was manipulated?